Point of View Do Angiotesin II Blockers Increase the Incidence of
Bibliographic record
Abstract
York, Canada, a larger incidence of myocardial infarctions in an-giostesin II blockers was discussed. First there was a citation of VALUE study1, where valsartan produced a significant statistical increase of 19 % in the myocardial infarction (MI) incidence, fatal and non-fatal. Actually, this study compared valsartan with amlodipine and, in the occurrence of MI, there was really a significant advantage (p=0.02) over amlo-dipine. Nevertheless, this was a secondary goal. N this sense, the first observation we should make is that the study did not compare drug x placebo, but drug x drug. In the first composed outcome there was no difference between the two drugs. In the valsartan group there was gain in relation to the diabetic subgroup (p<0.0001) and in the occurrence of cardiac failure (CF), in this case without significance (p=0.12). Later there was a citation of the alternative-CHARM study2,
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".